The Thinker's Toolkit: Powerful Techniques for Problem Solving Morgan Jones, Crown Publishing Group, 1996

• Chapters 1 to 3 (General Problem Solving)

Chapter 1 - Thinking About Thinking Chapter 2 - Insights into Problem Solving Chapter 3 – Problem Restatement

=====

Chapter 1 - Thinking About Thinking

Most problems, even the ones we regard as fairly simple, are much too complex and ambiguous to analyze without some kind of structuring.

When elements of a problem are seen visually, we often discover correlations we missed when we simply thought about them.

Powerful, practical, proven techniques for analyzing problems of every type do exist

There is no question that the unconscious has a governing role in much of what we consciously think and do.

A striking example was related in David Kahn’s The Codebreakers.

• Regarding the breaking of codes during World War II, he said that it required enormous volumes of text and corresponding quantities of statistics, and that the solutions took a heavy toll of nervous energy. One German cryptanalyst recalled, “You must concentrate almost in a nervous trance when working on a code. It is not often done by conscious effort. The solution often seems to crop up from the subconscious.”

We unwittingly, repeatedly, habitually commit a variety of analytic sins.

For example: We commonly begin our analysis of a problem by formulating our conclusions; we thus start at what should be the end of the analytic process.

Our analysis usually focuses on the solution we intuitively favor; we therefore give inadequate attention to alternative solutions.

Not surprisingly, the solution we intuitively favor is, more often than not, the first one that seems satisfactory.

Managers most of the time settle for a satisfactory solution that suffices for the time being rather than pursue a better solution that a “rational model” would likely yield.

We tend to confuse “discussing/thinking hard” about a problem with “analyzing” it.

• These notes are intended for personal use as a study guide to accompany the book.

Thinkers Toolkit page 2 of 9

We focus on the substance (evidence, arguments, and conclusions) and not on the process of our analysis.

Most people are functionally illiterate when it comes to structuring their analysis.

In the instinctive approach the mind generally remains closed to alternatives, favoring instead the first satisfactory decision or solution.

In the structured approach the mind remains open, enabling one to examine each element of the decision or problem separately, systematically, and sufficiently,

We are driven to view the world around us in terms of patterns. The human mind instinctively views the world in terms of patterns, which it recognizes based on memories of past experiences.

Because our brain is so thoroughly optimized as a pattern-recognition mechanism, we need only a fragment of a pattern to retrieve the whole from memory.

Our compulsion to see patterns can easily mislead us when we analyze problems.

Unfortunately, the mind also can easily misconstrue random events as nonrandom,

It instinctively, compulsively fills in the spaces between them and imprints the resulting image in our conscious mind.

When we want to see a particular pattern or expect to see it, or have become accustomed to seeing it, not only do we fill in missing information but our mind edits out features that don’t fit the desired or familiar pattern.

Stereotyping is a form of patterning: perceiving a similarity between two events or things because of superficial features and then, based on that perceived similarity, unconsciously ascribing to one of the events additional attributes of the other.

Another kind of patterning is the tendency of the human mind to look for cause-and-effect relationships.

We often perceive cause and effect when no such relationship exists.

We instinctively rely on, and are susceptible to, biases and assumptions.

Bias — an unconscious belief that conditions, governs, and compels our behavior— is not a new concept.

Although customarily viewed as a pejorative term, bias is generally a good thing.

As with our other human mental traits, we would be dysfunctional without biases. It is bias that enables us to repeat an action we have taken before without going through all of the mental steps that led to the original act. In this sense, bias is a preconditioned response.

For the most part our biases, and the assumptions they both breed and feed upon, are highly accurate and become more so as we grow older.

Thinkers Toolkit page 3 of 9

Much more often than not, our biases lead us to correct conclusions and reactions, and they do it exceedingly fast.

We tend to give high value to new information that is consistent with our biases, thus reinforcing them, while giving low value to, and even rejecting, new information that is inconsistent with our biases thus preserving them.

New information that is ambiguous either is construed as consistent with our biases or is dismissed as irrelevant.

It is only when the truth jolts our complacency, making us realize there is something wrong with our reasoning, that we are moved to identify and rethink our biases.

The trouble with biases is that they impose artificial constraints and boundaries on what we think.

The more we know about a subject, the more our biases affect our understanding of it, for better or worse.

Information is “vivid” when it is acquired either traumatically or recently

Information that is vivid is more easily remembered than pallid, abstract information and, for that reason, has greater influence on our thinking.

This “vividness effect” is not something we elect to have. It’s an inherent feature of the human mind—a package deal. It comes with the way our minds are programmed. It’s the way the mind works.

The mind doesn’t rigorously test the logic of every new piece of information it receives.

When a piece of deductive reasoning leads to a conclusion we don’t like, we often rebut it with irrelevancies.

The mind operates analogically, not logically.

We are logical only in a superficial sense; at a deeper level we are systematically illogical and biased….

“Natural” reasoning is our practice of leaping to a conclusion that is probably correct based on the recognition of similarities between the situation confronting us at the moment and one that confronted us in the past. This is analogical thinking — patterning.

“Natural reasoning proceeds by steps that are credible [plausible] but not rigorous and arrives at conclusions that are likely [probable] but not certain.”

If we had to be wholly consistent and certain, we could hardly think at all,

The mother of all biases is the “mind-set.” Each of us, over time, as we acquire more and more knowledge about a subject, develops a comprehensive, overall perspective on it,

A mind-set is the distillation of our accumulated knowledge about a subject into a single, coherent framework or lens through which we view it.

Thinkers Toolkit page 4 of 9

Mind-sets enable us to interpret events around us quickly and to function effectively in the world.

Mind-sets enable us to put events and information immediately into context without having to reconstruct from memory everything of relevance that previously happened.

Mind-sets therefore provide us instant insight into complex problems, enabling us to make timely, coherent, and accurate judgments about events.

Once a mind-set has taken root, it is extremely difficult to dislodge because it is beyond the reach of our conscious mind.

The question then is, if we aren’t aware of our biases and mind-sets, how can we protect ourselves against their pernicious negative effects?

Most biases and mind-sets are highly resistant to alteration and are changed only gradually, eroded away by repeated exposure to new information.

We feel the need to find explanations for everything, regardless of whether the explanations are accurate.

The compulsion to explain everything drives our curiosity and thirst for knowledge of the world.

If we can’t immediately perceive a connecting pattern, the mind manufactures one, either by filling in “missing” information … we force-fit a pattern to relieve our discomfort.

Harmony (knowing) is pleasing; dissonance or disharmony (not knowing) is displeasing.

Knowing is satisfying and comforting; not knowing is unsettling.

When analyzing problems, we sometimes come up with explanations that don’t represent the evidence very well, but we use them anyway and feel comfortable doing it.

Because of biases and mind-sets, we subconsciously don’t care whether the explanation is valid. Its validity is simply not a factor.

There’s an autonomous, unconscious mechanism in your mind that switches to “satisfied” when we’ve finished formulating an explanation for something.

Humans have a penchant to seek out and put stock in evidence that supports their beliefs and judgments while eschewing and devaluing evidence that does not.

Humans are focusers by nature.

Reality is a jumble of sensations and details. Attention enables us to combine separate sensations into unified objects and lets us examine objects closely to be sure of their identity.

Focusing has an immense downside when we analyze problems. It tends to make us view problems one-dimensionally. We tend to focus on (glom on to) the first solution that makes sense —that offers an explanation.

Thinkers Toolkit page 5 of 9

Our fixation on our chosen solution therefore causes us to value evidence that supports that solution and to devalue, disbelieve, discredit, and discard evidence that does not.

We therefore tend to accept at face value information that is consistent with our beliefs and to critically scrutinize and discount information that contradicts them.

The mind subtly, unconsciously reconfigures the evidence to make it consistent with our expectation.

Inverse thinking: If your friend was against something, ask him or her to make a case for it. Chances are that they are so focused on their interpretation of the issue that they cannot adequately articulate the other side (or sides).

The hallmark of focusing is the revered human institution of advocacy — taking a position on an issue, marshaling supporting evidence, and defending that position against the arguments of those holding (focusing on) opposing views.

Advocacy is venerated and rewarded, institutions teach us, the students, the art and skill not of objective analysis but of subjective argumentation.

When the advocator is also the decision maker, advocacy can be destructive of sound, effective, and profitable solutions because advocacy feeds and perpetuates our mind-sets, biases, beliefs, and prejudices.

We tend to cling to untrue beliefs in the face of contradictory evidence.

We humans treat beliefs like material possessions … our possessions make us feel good, and for that reason we cherish and protect them.

We prefer to believe what we prefer to be true.

What you perceive depends on who you are. [Where you stand depends on where you’re sitting.]

=====

Chapter 2 - Insights into Problem Solving

Factors are things, circumstances, or conditions that cause something to happen.

Factors, in turn, beget issues, which are points or questions to be disputed or decided.

Major factors and major issues are the navigational aids of analysis. If we lose sight of them, we lose our way in the analytic process.

We should analyze subtleties only to the point where we recognize them for what they are. If a subtlety is important, it is, by definition, no longer a subtlety; it’s a major factor or issue and should be treated as such.

Thinkers Toolkit page 6 of 9

People have great difficulty in articulating major factors in a given situation. What they tend to do is identify factors that come immediately to mind,

Identifying major factors is not a congenital skill but is acquired only through practice

Create at the outset and maintain throughout the problem-solving process a list of major factors and issues, adding and deleting items as necessary.

Convergence and Divergence: Convergence means bringing together and moving toward one point … “getting to the point”.

Convergence is the opposite of divergence, which means to branch out, to go in different directions, from a single point.

Divergence: Taking a broader view of a problem, whether by examining evidence more thoroughly, gathering new evidence, or entertaining alternative solutions.

Divergent thinking opens the mind to new ideas and thoughts, convergent thinking closes the mind by viewing a problem ever more narrowly

Without divergence, we could not analyze a problem creatively or objectively; without convergence, we would just keep on analyzing, never coming to closure.

Most of us are not inherently good divergers.

One unambiguous symptom of our convergent tendency is the difficulty most humans have in trying to brainstorm … the freewheeling process of generating ideas randomly and spontaneously without worrying about their practicality.

There is an inverse relationship between the number of facts and the amount of judgment required to solve a problem.

Always do a “sanity check” by asking yourself, “Does this make sense?”

Thinkers Toolkit page 7 of 9

In most circumstances, the analytic power of a group of analysts is greater than that of any of its single members.

Yet when a group of people sits around a table and analyzes a problem, rare is the group member who believes that the other members collectively know more about the problem, understand it better, and can come up with a better solution than that member can,

A host of things — such as individual mind-sets, conflicts over who is in authority, domination by a clique, lack of group focus— can decimate the effectiveness of a group.

=====

Chapter 3 – Problem Restatement

Every problem, from major ones, such as abortion and national health care, to mundane ones, such as an overdrawn checking account, can be viewed from multiple conflicting perspectives.

Restate (redefine) the problem in as many different ways as you can think of. Shift your mental gears into a divergent mode

The aim of problem restatement is to broaden our perspective of a problem, helping us to identify the central issues and alternative solutions and increasing the chance that the outcome our analysis produces will fully, not partially, resolve the problem.

Identifying the crux of a problem saves immense time, effort, and money in the analytic phase.

There are four common pitfalls in defining problems:

1. No focus—definition is too vague or broad.

• Example: What should we do about computers in the workplace?

2. Focus is misdirected—definition is too narrow.

• Example: Johnny’s grades are slipping. How can we get him to study harder?

3. Statement is assumption-driven.

• Example: How can we make leading businesses aware of our marketing capabilities?

4. Statement is solution-driven.

• Example: How can we persuade the legislature to build more prisons to reduce prison overcrowding?

Thinkers Toolkit page 8 of 9

Techniques for Problem Restatement:

1. Paraphrase: Restate the problem using different words without losing the original meaning.

• Initial statement: How can we limit congestion on the roads? • Paraphrase: How can we keep road congestion from growing?

Trying to say the same thing with different words puts a slightly different spin on the meaning, which triggers.

2. 180 degrees: Turn the problem on its head.

• Initial statement: How can we get employees to come to the company picnic? • 180 degrees: How can we discourage employees from attending the picnic?

Taking the opposite view of a problem is a surprisingly effective technique, for it not only challenges the problem’s underlying premises but directly identifies what is causing the problem.

In the example, the answer to the 180-degree statement may be that the picnic is scheduled at a time when employees will be at church or are otherwise engaged in important personal activities. If so, scheduling around those activities would be one way to get employees to come to the picnic.

3. Broaden the focus: Restate the problem in a larger context.

• Initial statement: Should I change jobs? • Broaden focus: How can I achieve job security?

Note that the answer to the initial statement is a yes or no and immediately cuts off consideration of alternative options.

4. Redirect the focus: Boldly, consciously change the focus.

1. Initial statement: How can we boost sales? 2. Redirected focus: How can we cut costs?

This approach demands the most thought and creativity.

It is often the most difficult but also the most productive.

5. Ask “Why”: Ask “why” of the initial problem statement. Then formulate a new problem statement based on the answer. Then ask “why” again, and again restate the problem based on the answer. Repeat this process a number of times until the essence of the “real” problem emerges.

• Initial statement: How can we market our in-house multimedia products? • Why? Because many of our internal customers are outsourcing their multimedia projects.

Restatement: How can we keep internal customers from outsourcing their multimedia projects?

Thinkers Toolkit page 9 of 9

• Why? Because it should be our mandate to do all of the organization’s multimedia. Restatement: How can we establish a mandate to do all of the organization’s multimedia?

• Why? Because we need to broaden our customer base. Restatement: How can we broaden our customer base?

• Why? Because we need a larger base in order to be cost effective. Restatement: How can we become more cost effective?

• Why? Because our profit margin is diminishing. • Restatement: How can we increase our profit margin?

A principal problem has emerged: How to obtain a mandate to do all of the organization’s multimedia projects.

=====

Restating a problem several different ways is a divergent technique that opens our mind to alternatives.

Restating a problem invariably serves to open it up, revealing important perspectives and issues we otherwise might have overlooked.

Grammar matters: A valuable tip when restating problems is to make them simple, positive, and in active voice.

The mind works more easily and quickly with simple, positive, active-voice sentences than with complex, negative, passive-voice sentences.

Humans take longer to process a negative thought than a positive one.

We seem programmed to think more readily about what is rather than what is not.

If negatives give us pause, double negatives are worse.

A statement in passive voice takes longer to process than one in active voice … That’s because the mind’s basic linguistic programming interprets and forms sentences in terms of actor-action-object, not object-action-actor. When the object in a statement comes first, the mind must still set the object aside until the actor and action become known.

Example: The fan was waved by Mary … versus … Mary waved the fan.

The difficulty we have with passive voice probably stems from the mind’s built-in propensity to view the world in terms of cause-and-effect relationships.

The wording of the problem definition is crucial, and anything we can do to clarify and simplify it is significant.

[end of Chapter 1 to 3 on General Problem Solving]